A.

Stating the Research Problem

After you have selected and evaluated the problem, the next task is to state the
problem in a form amenable to investigation. We cannot overemphasize the importance
of a clear statement of the problem. Beginning researchers often have a general idea of
what they want to investigate but have trouble articulating it as a workable problem. They
cannot make progress until they can state unambiguously what they are going to do. The
statement of the problem varies according to the type of research. Thus, we consider
quantitative and qualitative research statements separately.
1. The Problem Statement in Quantitative
The problem statement in quantitative research specifies the variables and the
population of interest. The problem statement can be a declarative one such as “This
study investigates the effect of computer simulations on the science achievement of
middle school students.” The statement can ask a question about a relationship
between the two (or more) variables. The previous problem might be restated as
“What is the relationship between use of computer simulations and achievement in
middle school science?” Some scholars prefer the question form simply because it is
straightforward and psychologically seems to orient the researcher to the task at hand
—namely, to find the answer to the question. But either is an acceptable way to
present the research problem.
The problem can be further clarified by operationally defining the variables involved.
In the previous example, you might specify what computer simulations will be used,
how science achievement will be measured, and how the sample of middle school
students will be selected. The problem statement then becomes “What is the effect of
a computer-assisted biology course on performance on the Test of Biological
Concepts of students in an eighth-grade biology class?” One can then proceed to plan
an experiment that compares the scores on the Test of Biological Concepts by
students having the computer instruction with those of similar students having the
traditional biology curriculum.

2. The Problem Statement in Qualitative

Qualitative researchers also begin with a problem, but they state it much more
broadly than in quantitative research. A qualitative problem statement or question
indicates the general purpose of the study. Formulation of a qualitative problem
begins with the identification of a general topic or an area you want to know more
about. This general topic of interest is sometimes referred to by qualitative researchers
as the focus of inquiry. This initial broad focus provides the framework but allows
for changes as the study proceeds. As the researcher gathers data and discovers new
meanings, the general problem narrows to more specific topics and new questions
may arise. For example, Piert (2007) conducted a qualitative study to learn about a
rite-of-passage program for transitioning black young people into adulthood. The
program draws upon African traditional culture to impart values, improve self-
concept, and develop cultural awareness. The specific problem was “What are the
perceptions of former students who had experienced a rite-of-passage program while
attending an African centered high school?” The findings suggest that the participants
perceived the rite of passage as a community endeavor that facilitated their transition
into adulthood. They viewed it as a method to inculcate social, cultural, and political
values that will ensure the positive development of black young adults within the
black community as well as American society.
Whereas the quantitative researcher always states the problem before
collecting data, the qualitative researcher may formulate problems after beginning to
collect data. In fact, the researcher often does not present the final statement of the
problem—which typically specifies the setting, subjects, context, and aim of the study
—until he or she has collected at least some data. In qualitative research, the
statement may be somewhat general in the beginning, but it will become more
focused as the study proceeds. After exploring the sites, the people, and the situations,
the researcher narrows the options and states the research problem more specifically.
 CHAPTER III
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A. Meaning of Review of Literature

The phrase ‘review of literature’ consists of two words: Review and Literature.
The word ‘literature’ has conveyed different meaning from the traditional meaning. It is
used with reference to the languages e.g. Hindi literature, English literature, Sanskrit
literature. It includes subject content: prose, poetry, dramas, novels, stories etc. Here in
research methodology the term literature refers to the knowledge of a particular area of
investigation of any discipline which includes theoretical, practical and its research
studies. The term ‘review’ means to organize the knowledge of the specific area of
research to evolve an edifice of knowledge to show that his study would be an addition to
this field. The task of review of literature is highly creative and tedious because
researcher has to synthesize the available knowledge of the field in a unique way to
provide the rationale for his study.
The very words ‘review’ and ‘literature’ have quite different meanings in the
historical approach. In historical research, the researcher does much more than review
already published material; he seeks to discover and to integrate new information which
has never been reported and never considered. The concept and process implied in the
term ‘review of literature’ have such different meanings in historical as compared with
survey and experimental research.

B. Need to Review of Literature

The review of literature is essential due to the following reasons:
1. One of the early steps in planning a research work is to review research done
previously in the particular area of interest and relevant area quantitative and
qualitative analysis of this research usually gives the worker an indication of the
direction.
2. It is very essential for every investigator to be up-to-date in his information about the
literature, related to his own problem already done by others. It is considered the
most important prerequisite to actual planning and conducting the study.
3. It avoids the replication of the study of findings to take an advantage from similar or
related literature as regards, to methodology, techniques of data collection, procedure
adopted and conclusions drawn. He can justify his own endeavor in the field.
 4. It provides as source of problem of study, an analogy may be drawn for identifying
and selecting his own problem of research. The researcher formulates his hypothesis
on the basis of review of literature. It also provides the rationale for the study. The
results and findings of the study can also be discussed at length.
The review of literature indicates the clear picture of the problem to be solved. The
scholarship in the field can be developed by reviewing the literature of the field.

C. Objectives of Review of Literature

The review of literature serves the following purposes in conducting research work:
1. It provides theories, ideas, explanations or hypothesis which may prove useful in
the formulation of a new problem.
2. It indicates whether the evidence already available solves the problem adequately
without requiring further investigation. It avoids the replication.
3. It provides the sources for hypothesis. The researcher can formulate research
hypothesis on the basis of available studies.
4. It suggests method, procedure, sources of data and statistical techniques
appropriate to the solution of the problem.
5. It locates comparative data and findings useful in the interpretation and discussion
of results. The conclusions drawn in the related studies may be significantly
compared and may be used as the subject for the findings of the study.
6. It helps in developing experts and general scholarship of the investigator in the
area investigated.
7. It contributes towards the accurate knowledge of the evidence or literature in
one’s area of activity is a good avenue towards making oneself. This knowledge is
an asset ever afterwards whether one is employed in an institution of higher
learning or a research organization.

D. Principles and Procedures for the Review of Literature

The following is the specific procedure through which review can be done appropriately:
1. It is generally advisable to get first and over all view by consulting a general
source, such as a text-book which is more likely to provide the meaning and
nature of the concepts and variables or theoretical framework of the field. The
logical starting point is to get a clear picture of the problem to be solved. A text-
 book usually provides the theoretical aspects of the problem. It is very essential
to develop deep understanding about the variables and the field.
2. After developing the insight about the general nature of his problem, the
investigator should review the empirical researches of the area. The best
reference for this phase is the handbook of research. Encyclopedia of Educational
Research, the Review of Educational Research and International Abstracts for
more up to-date findings. The researcher’s major concern at this point should be
to get a clear picture of the field as a whole; specific details are important at this
stage. He should start from a topical outline and a temperature set of
classifications, so that whatever he reads can be made meaningful.
3. The research for library material must be systematic and thorough. The
investigator generally should start by collecting his references from the
educational index. When a large number of references are to be copied, they
should be typed because precision is required here.
4. The researcher should take note systematically in the light of such criteria as
uniformity, accuracy and ease of assembly. The notes should be taken on the
card. Each entry should be made separately; references should be recorded with
complete bibliographic data. It should be recorded on front side of the card and
content should be taken below and reverse side of it. Each note should be
recorded carefully and accurately.
5. The investigator should take as complete notes as he might need. On the other
hand, taking unnecessary notes is wasteful. The useful and necessary material
should be recorded precisely. It would be better that similar sources are gathered.
It is necessary that a general education of each source, rather than simply a
summary of its content be made. Such evaluation is necessary both in presenting
the study in the review of literature, and in using the study as background for the
interpretation of the findings of the study.
6. A major pre-requisite for effective library work is the ability to read at high
speed. This can only be developed through practice. He must learn to skim
material to see what it has to contribute to the study, only after its reference has
been established, it should be read in detail. Surveying the literature for the
purpose of conducting research is not just ‘a pleasant excursion in the wonderful
word of books’, it is a precise and exacting task of locating specific information
for the specific purpose.
 7. The actual note-taking process is always a difficult task for the researcher. He has
to spend long hours in the library taking notes by hand. It is a very tedious job
and leads to importance to carelessness an illegibility. He should make use of the
facilities available in the library for this purpose.
E. The Function of the Review of Literature
There are five functions of review of literature:
1. The conceptual frame of reference for the contemplated research.
2. An understanding of the status of research in problem area.
3. Clues to the research approach, method, instrumentation and data analysis.
4. An estimate of the probability of success of the contemplated research and the
significance or usefulness of the findings and, assuming the decision is made to
continue.
5. Specific information required to interpret the definitions, assumptions, limitations
and hypotheses of research.

1. Conceptual Frame of Reference

The first function provides the conceptual framework of research which involves
both conceptual and research literature. The most direct way of doing this is to read the
basic writings in the field as well as the recent writings of key thinkers. The researcher
must feel fully satisfied when he has completed this phase of his view that he is aware of
all the points of view in the field and particularly that he has devoted himself diligently
to learning about the points of view which differ from or are opposite to his own. All
points of view relevant to the research problem should be presented as strongly as the
most devoted proponents of that point of view would wish. The first function of review
of literature provides the sound conceptual framework of the research problem. He
should feel that, in a debate or seminar, he is able to represent any point of view fully, in
the sense that he has come to understand the arguments for that point of view.

2. Status of Research
The second function of the review of the literature is to provide an understanding
of the status of research in the field. This comes from reviewing the research literature.
This phase has several specific sub-functions which can be described in terms of the
questions words: what, when, who and how. These four words provide the basic
information which reveals the status of the research in hand. First, through his review of
 the research literature the researcher learns what researchers have already been
undertaken and completed in the problem area and the results that this research has
already achieved. The unnecessary repetition can be avoided. Learning about research in
progress is difficult to locate. Within specific university or the experts of research degree
committee can help in this direction. The other aspect of what, learning the results of
previous research, is the best-known purpose of reviewing the literature. We are more
interested in learning about previous research than the result. After intensive review of
conceptual and research literature in such an area, a researcher may develop confidence
that he has an explanation for the inconsistencies.

3. Research Approach, Method, Instrumentation and Data Analysis

This function of the review will serve the third function of providing clues of
methodology and instrumentation. Specifically, the researcher will want to learn the
extent to which previous research in he problem area has utilized the historical survey, or
experimental approaches, because this will help to guide his own choice of research
approach. For this same reason, he will want to identify the research methods which
have been used so that experience with these can help him select his own. Finally, he
seeks to become familiar with the data-gathering instruments which have been used so
that if an already existing instrument is appropriate, it can be used intact or adapted for
his own research

4. Probability of Success and Significance of Findings

With the full body of the previous research reviewed, the researcher is in a
position to evaluate the success which others have had done research in the problem area
and the usefulness of their findings. If others have been successful and the findings are
useful, then the prognosis for his own research is good, and the decision to continue on
with the research is clear and simple to make. However, if others have been unsuccessful
and produced inconclusive research or research of little value, then the researcher has a
more difficult to make decision. He must ask himself whether there are specific reasons
to believe that he can succeed where all others have failed. For the literature truly to
serve this function of providing as estimate of the success potential of the contemplated
research, the researcher must be willing to make the negative decisions to abandon or
alter the project, as well as the positive ones to continue on as intended. All too often in
research, only lip service is paid to this function. Researchers do review the literature
 and do seek to determine the success potential of their contemplated research, but never
truly entertain the possibility of altering or abandoning their plan. If no one has ever
succeeded in doing what they plan, they argue that they must be the first. This author
would say more power to them, and would be the first to cheer their courage provided it
was based on something more substantial than hope.
If the researcher has some new idea, some new method, some new instrument,
which leads him to believe he will succeed where all others failed, then he has every
right to proceed. However, if he only intends to try again what has never worked before,
then he should seriously consider whether he can reasonably except to do any better than
his predecessors. If not, he should devote his time, energy, and ability to a research
problem in which there is a greater likelihood of his making a positive professional
contribution.

5. Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, and Hypotheses

After considering the literature the researcher can honestly conclude that there is a
reasonable expectation that he will successfully complete the contemplated research with
results that will make a contribution of his field. Then he will use the material from the
literature as the basis for stating his definitions, assumptions, limitations, and
hypotheses. Having read the works presenting opinion and theory in the problem area,
and having reviewed the relevant research as well, the researcher should be thoroughly
familiar with the way in which terms have been used, both in the theoretical sense in the
conceptual literature, and in the more functional sense in the research literature. Thus, he
should be able to formulate the definitions for his contemplated project. Where possible
and sensible, he should use the definitions which have previously been used in the
literature, because this is one way of making old and new research comparable. Where
necessary. However, he is free to adapt previous definitions or formulate new ones. The
essential point is that this be a knowledge decision made with full awareness of how key
terms have been used previously.
In the same way that the review of research makes the researcher aware of how
terms have been used, it (the conceptual review as well) should have made him aware of
those aspects of the problem area which have been so well demonstrated by previous
research that they are widely accepted as true. These he can use as the assumptions of his
on research. Finally, he should have become sufficiently attuned to the controversial or
open-to-question aspects of the problem area. Then, as he plans his research, he can be
alert to which of these aspects he can or which he cannot handle in his own project.
Those he cannot handle will form the basis for the statement of limitations of the
research.